BA-12A-23-04/2024
Case BA-12A-23-04/2024 was heard in the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam between appellant Chua Zhen Hong and respondent Ng Eng Huat, concerning an appeal against the Sessions Court's decision to transfer a civil suit from the Magistrate's Court to the Sessions Court.
The underlying civil action involved claims of personal injury, negligence and prayers for declaration and specific performance regarding CCTV installations.
On November 8, 2024, Judicial Commissioner Choong Yeow Choy dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court's transfer order, with costs in the cause.
Background
The case originates from a neighborhood dispute on June 23, 2022, resulting in physical altercation, police report, and subsequent criminal proceedings where one party was fined RM1,888. Civil suit was initiated in Magistrate's Court seeking various reliefs including declaration of wrongful conduct and removal of surveillance cameras.
Issues
- Whether the delay in applying for transfer (9 months after jurisdiction issue was raised) amounts to tactical maneuvering warranting dismissal
- Whether the numerous interlocutory applications by both parties affect the assessment of delay
- Whether jurisdictional limitations of Magistrate's Court necessitate transfer despite procedural objections
Holdings
- Delay alone is not fatal to a transfer application when jurisdictional issues are involved
- Both parties contributed to procedural delays through various applications
- Sessions Court's decision to allow transfer was proper given the nature of reliefs sought
- Costs ordered in the cause due to shared responsibility for delays
Reasoning
- While there was a 9-month delay in seeking transfer, both parties engaged in multiple interlocutory applications contributing to overall delay
- Jurisdictional issues take precedence over procedural complaints about delay
- Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction for declarations and specific performance; transfer is necessary for proper adjudication
- The case had already exceeded typical timeline for resolution due to various applications by both parties
Significance
Clarifies that jurisdictional requirements take precedence over procedural delays when considering transfer applications, especially when both parties contribute to prolonged proceedings.
Precedential Value
Establishes guidance on handling transfer applications where delay is alleged but jurisdictional issues exist.
Judgment
Reasoning
The High Court found that while there was considerable delay in making the transfer application, both parties had contributed to the prolongation of proceedings through numerous interlocutory applications. The fundamental issue of jurisdiction cannot be overshadowed by procedural complaints about delay. The Court emphasized that when jurisdictional competence is in question, it must be addressed regardless of timing.
Main Findings
- Jurisdictional requirements take precedence over procedural delays
- Both parties' conduct contributed to the case's protraction
- Transfer was necessary due to Magistrate Court's jurisdictional limitations
- Delay in transfer application was not solely attributable to the applicant
Orders Made
- Appeal against transfer order dismissed
- Sessions Court's transfer order affirmed
- Costs ordered in the cause
- No order as to costs of the appeal
Keywords
Case Details
Case ID: BA-12A-23-04/2024
Case Date: 8 November 2024
Case Status: ongoing
Court Information
Court: High Court of Malaya Shah Alam
Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Type: High Court
Jurisdiction: Civil
Presiding Judge
Name: Choong Yeow Choy
Position: Judicial Commissioner
Parties
Ng Eng Huat
plaintiff
Chua Zhen Hong
defendant
Legal Representatives
Case Information
Case Type: tort
Monetary Value: RM 4,557
Governing Laws:
- Subordinate Courts Act 1948 Section 65 (1, 3, 4, 5)
Civil jurisdiction of Sessions Courts - Subordinate Courts Act 1948 Section 90
Civil jurisdiction of First Class Magistrate - Subordinate Courts Act 1948 Section 93 (1)
Provisions of Act relating to Sessions Courts applicable to Magistrates' Courts - Courts of Judicature Act 1964 Section Schedule 1 Paragraph 12
Jurisdiction of the High Court - Rules of Court 2012 Section Order 57 (1, 3)
Transfer of proceedings to another Court - Rules of Court 2012 Section Order 92 (4)
Inherent powers of the Court
Cause of Action & Relief Sought
Cause of Action:
Relief Sought:
Interlocutory Applications
| Type | Filed By | Date | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strike Out Application | defendant | 9 Aug 2023 | Withdrawn |
| Amendment of Defense | defendant | 1 Sept 2023 | Allowed |
| Strike Out Application | defendant | 30 Jan 2024 | Dismissed |
| Transfer to Small Claims Court | defendant | 2 Feb 2024 | Dismissed |
| Transfer to Sessions Court | plaintiff | 26 Feb 2024 | Allowed |
| Stay of Proceedings | plaintiff | 14 Mar 2024 | Withdrawn |
Key Events
Incident occurred between parties
Led to police report and subsequent criminal charge
Civil suit filed in Magistrate's Court
Case No. BB-A73-20-12/2022
Amendment of Writ and Statement of Claim
Added prayers for CCTV removal and declaration
Change of solicitors for Defendant
Magistrate Court e-review
Court indicated jurisdiction issue with declaration and CCTV removal prayers
Sessions Court allowed transfer application
High Court judgment delivered on appeal
Appeal against transfer dismissed
Judgment
Date: 8 November 2024
Outcome: Appeal dismissed, Sessions Court transfer order affirmed
Reasoning:
Both jurisdiction and procedural fairness considerations support transfer to Sessions Court despite delay
Additional Information
Related Cases:
- BB-A73-20-12/2022
Remarks:
Appeal against Sessions Court order allowing transfer from Magistrate's Court. Original suit stems from neighbor dispute involving alleged assault and CCTV installation.